FILED June 29, 2020 06:30 PM Appellate Court Re cords IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Clackamas County Circuit Court Case No. 17CR30088 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CA A167187 ISIDRO FLORES RAMOS, aka SC S067105 Santiago Flores Martinez, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DON’T SHOOT PORTLAND _____________________________________________________________ Timothy Wright, OSB No. 174930 Christopher A. Perdue, OSB No. 136166 [email protected] [email protected] Tonkon Torp LLP Douglas M. Petrina, OSB No. 963943 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 [email protected] Portland, OR 97204 Oregon Department of Justice Telephone: (503) 802-2052 Appellate Division 1162 Court Street NE J. Ashlee Albies, OSB No. 051846 Salem, OR 97301 [email protected] Telephone: (503) 378-4402 Ablies & Stark 1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1850 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent, Portland, OR 97204 Respondent on Review State of Telephone: (503) 308-4770 Oregon Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Don’t Shoot Portland [Counsel continued on the following pages] June 2020 Ernest G. Lannet, OSB No. 013248 Aliza B. Kaplan, OSB No. 135523 Chief Defender [email protected] Erik M. Blumenthal, OSB No. 073240 Sarah Laidlaw, OSB No. 111188 Deputy Public Defender [email protected] [email protected] Lewis & Clark Law School Office of Public Defense Services 10101 S. Terwilliger Blvd. 1175 Court St. NE Portland, OR 97219 Salem, Oregon 97301 Telephone: (503) 768-6721 Telephone: (503) 378-6231 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Criminal Justice Reform Clinic at Petitioner on Review Isidro Flores Lewis & Clark Law School Ramos Scott Sell, OSB No. 144297 [email protected] Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost 820 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97206 Telephone: (503) 228-5222 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Street Roots June 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 2 I Nonunanimous verdict instructions have disparately impacted Black people, as its origins suggest was intended ................................................ 2 A Nonunanimous verdict instructions have resulted in unjust outcomes that disproportionately affect Black Oregonians ............. 2 B The history of the nonunanimous verdict instruction suggests that those outcomes were the point ......................................................... 3 II Nonunanimous verdict instructions fit into Oregon’s white supremacist history ......................................................................................................... 5 A Oregon’s founders created a white supremacist state ...................... 6 B Oregon carries its history with it ...................................................... 9 III Oregon’s white supremacy has eroded faith in the justice system ...........13 IV To restore faith in the justice system and for the integrity of the courts, this court should acknowledge this law’s history and disparate effects and correct what is in its authority to correct ..................................................14 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................15 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ramos v. Louisiana, __ US __, 140 S Ct 1390, __ L Ed 2d __ (2020) .................................. 1, 3, 14 State v. Williams, No. 15-CR-58698 (C C Or, Dec. 15, 2016)..................................................... 3 Other Authorities Edwin Peterson, Chair, Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System, May 1994 at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/153720NCJRS.pdf ........ 3, 12, 13 Aliza B. Kaplan & Amy Saack, Overturning Apodaca v. Oregon Should Be Easy: Nonunanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Undermine the Credibility of Our Justice System, 95 Or L Rev 1, (2016) ............................................................................................ 4, 5 The Oregonian ................................................................................................. 4, 5 Charles H. Carey ed., The Oregon Constitution and Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1857 (1926) .......... 5, 6, 7, 8 Bill of Rights, Article I, section 35 ....................................................................... 7 David Schuman, The Creation of the Oregon Constitution, 74 Or L Rev 611, (1995) ...................................................................................... 6, 7, 8 Cheryl A. Brooks Comment, Race, Politics, and Denial: Why Oregon Forgot to Ratify the Fourteenth Amendment 83 Or L Rev 731, 736 (2004) .................................................................................... 6, 9 David Duniway & Neil Riggs eds., The Oregon Archives 1841- 1843 60 ............................................................................................................ 6 City of Portland Bureau of Planning, History of Portland’s African American Community (1805-to the Present) (1993) ....................................... 9 iii Eliza E. Canty-Jones, History is who we are and why we are the way we are ..................................................................................................... 11 Leanne C. Serbulo & Karen J. Gibson, Black and Blue: Police- Community Relations in Portland’s Albina District, 1964-1985 114 Oregon Historical Quarterly 1, (2013) ................................... 9, 10, 11, 12 Eliza E. Canty-Jones, History is who we are and why we are the way we are, Oregon Historical Society (2020) https://ohs.org/blog/history-is-who-we-are-and-why-we-are- the-way-we-are.cfm (accessed June 28, 2020)……………………………11 1 INTRODUCTION Amicus curiae, Don’t Shoot Portland, is a non-profit organization founded in 2016. Amicus seeks to encourage honest conversations about the influence of systemic discrimination in politics and, thereby, to create social change through activism, educational programing, community-based archival workshops, and civic participation.1 The interests of Amicus are aligned with the interests of petitioner. Amicus agrees with petitioner’s question presented, proposed rule of law, and statement of facts. Amicus supplements the petitioner’s argument. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT At issue on review is the impact of Ramos v. Louisiana, __ US __, 140 S Ct 1390, __ L Ed 2d __ (2020), on felony jury-trial cases in which the court instructed the jury that its verdict need not be unanimous and in which the jury was not polled or was unanimous. Verdicts in criminal cases that are obtained using the nonunanimous verdict instruction were and, so long as their results stand, remain white supremacist tools of the state. Oregon’s unique history of excluding and disenfranchising Black people through its laws has fostered an environment in which its systems, including its courts, must work to restore the faith of those communities. 1 https://www.dontshootpdx.org/about-us/ 2 To restore faith in the courts, and for the integrity of the courts, it is necessary for this court to acknowledge that history and its effects on Oregon’s Black community and to correct what is within its authority to correct. The Court can and should correct the harm done by years of use of the nonunanimous jury instruction. To do otherwise would perpetuate white supremacy and further erode faith in the criminal justice system and the courts. ARGUMENT I Nonunanimous verdict instructions have disparately impacted Black people, as its origins suggest was intended The unjust outcomes of nonunanimous verdict instructions have disparately impacted Black people. Nonunanimous verdict instructions nullify minority voices. The nullification of minority voices is particularly impactful on Oregon’s Black community, which makes up a small minority of Oregon’s population. A review of the history of nonunanimous verdict instructions indicates that that impact is not a bug but a feature. A Nonunanimous verdict instructions have resulted in unjust outcomes that disproportionately affect Black Oregonians Black and other nonwhite Oregonians have been uniquely impacted by nonunanimous verdict instructions. Census estimates for 2019 show that Oregon is 86.7% white, with a Black population of 2.2%. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/OR. 10 of 12 jurors represent 83.3% 3 of the jury. Drawing a jury from an average cross section of Oregonians would result in 11 white jurors and one Black juror. However, a jury drawn from a cross section of Oregonians is unlikely. A 1994 report found that minority communities are also underrepresented on juries. Edwin Peterson, Chair, Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System, pg 77, May 1994 at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/153720NCJRS.pdf (“Too few minorities are called for jury duty, and even fewer minorities actually serve on Oregon juries.”). Still, assuming the jury pool matches the state’s population, if only ten jurors are required to reach a conviction, the nonunanimous verdict instruction de facto suppressed minority opinions. In the event a Black juror is in the minority opinion, then, practically, the jury becomes